Interviewed in the launch edition of The Thinker in March this year,
former South African President Thabo Mbeki cautioned: ‘The nation as a whole
faces the important challenge to ensure that it does not allow the entrenchment
of a culture in our country’s public life of the practice of using untruths, of
resort to dishonest means and deceit to achieve particular goals.’ Alluding to
his ‘so-called “recall”’ as a case in point, he highlighted the disastrous
‘consequences’ that can result from ‘the persistent propagation of outright
falsehoods’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate
fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’.

As you well know from your long experience in business and your many encounters,
no doubt, with unscrupulous people, there are many ways to tell lies.

The basic sort of lie is the blatant variety told by former President Mbeki’s
political enemies in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, namely ‘outright
falsehoods’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate
fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’ that he had improperly
interfered in the decision of the National Prosecuting Authority to prosecute
current President Jacob Zuma for corruption, which, although the High Court
judge swallowed as the truth, the Supreme Court of Appeal judges later rightly
rejected, in as many words, as ‘outright falsehoods’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’,
‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and
‘lies’.

A more sneaky way to tell a lie is to state a half-truth; and deliberately
stating a half-truth is even worse than telling an outright lie because it is
true on its face, and can be plausibly defended as true even with one’s hand on
the Bible. Only it is calculated to deceive, just like an outright lie, because
had all the relevant known facts been mentioned, quite the contrary
understanding would have been imparted to those misled by the omission of the
relevant known facts.

Another species of dishonest communication is to respond to an honest,
straightforward point with a dishonest, devious non-sequitur, and even a red
herring, in order to evade addressing the honest, straightforward point raised
and to dishonestly distract attention from it.

In your friendly and thoughtful email to Peter earlier today, you proposed very
correctly that it would be ‘courteous and make sense to include Eleni et al. in
this mail-exchange, since they have been mentioned in the content’.

This is because Peter had discourteously left Eleni out when emailing a whole
bunch of AIDS dissidents and claiming that ‘Eleni et al. agree with me’.

Although your suggestion was addressed to Peter, David Rasnick saw fit to answer
on his behalf, not by agreeing, ‘Yes Georg, I agree, you make a fine point’, but
by joining issue and replying with a half-truth, a non-sequitur, a red herring:
‘I personally invited Eleni last April to give a talk at RA2009. She declined.’

The uninformed reader of this statement would be distracted from Peter’s
deplorable discourtesy towards Eleni (which he’s routinely displayed over the
years) and would understand that Eleni summarily rejected the invitation to give
a talk at the conference.

The uninformed reader of this statement would further understand that Eleni was
not interested in attending the conference.

In fact Eleni was very interested in attending a conference at which Peter would
be present, because as most of us know very well she is keen to confer with him
face to face about the existence of ‘HIV’.

I quote here from the Perth Group’s September 18 statement dissociating from
Rethinking AIDS organization: ‘The only member “of the so called Perth Group”
invited to the conference was Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos who was asked by David
Rasnick to talk on the antibody tests. We made it clear even before the
invitation the only way we could justify the time and expense demanded by our
participation was to have a debate with Peter Duesberg regarding our scientific
differences. Since David Crowe ruled this out, Eleni regrettably declined the
invitation and proposed Anthony Brink to present our views on the “HIV”
isolation problem on our behalf, as he ably did in May 2008 at the All Russia
Parents Assembly AIDS dissident conference held in Ekaterinburg. Celia Farber
and Crowe claim our proposal of Anthony was rejected because they wanted “to
have the pre-eminent expert”, “the highest scientific authority on each matter”,
address each topic. All “perfectly reasonable”. Now it appears there will be
talks on “HIV” isolation and the speakers will be Etienne de Harven and Crowe.’

The reason Eleni didn’t attend then, is that notwithstanding its billing as a
‘scientific conference’ in a promotional video clip published by Rethinking AIDS
on Youtube to entice and induce people to pay their money to attend a
‘scientific conference’ on AIDS, the conference was not a ‘scientific
conference’ on AIDS at all, in that David Crowe pre-decided there was to be no
conference between scientists over their respective scientific views. (In legal
terms, of course, the public representation of RA2009 as a ‘scientific
conference’ on Youtube was accordingly fraudulent. This makes it easy to
identify the individual behind this false claim.)

The reason David Crowe pre-decided that there was to be no conferring between
the scientists over their respective scientific views is because the one thing
he wanted to prevent at all costs was a genuine scientific conference addressing
the core scientific dispute between the world’s most famous AIDS dissident
scientist lauded in the mass media and therefore known to the general public,
and the most rigorous AIDS dissident scientist known to the entire AIDS
dissident activist community who are not embarrassingly scientifically
illiterate.

The last thing David Crowe wanted, David Rasnick too, was a debate between Peter
and Eleni and a resolution of their ancient disagreement about whether ‘HIV’ has
even been shown to exist or not.

This is despite the fact that whereas David Rasnick obviously doesn’t know what
the hell is going on and contradicts himself every five minutes, David Crowe
well understands that there is no virus at the heart of the HIV-AIDS construct;
why, he’s been ‘question[ing] the existence of HIV … for approximately a
decade’.

Actually if he was a person who preferred plain over weaselly speech, he’d have
said plainly: ‘I discovered the work of the Perth Group concerning the existence
of ‘HIV’ about ten years ago, and I promptly appreciated from reading their work
that ‘HIV’ has never been shown to exist.’ For this is what he really meant; he
didn’t mean that he hadn’t made up his mind yet; he didn’t mean to imply that in
his own mind any serious question remains over the issue; he meant he
understands and appreciates full-well that ‘HIV’ has never been proven to exist,
and that Peter’s claim that ‘HIV’ has been proved to exist even though it hasn’t
ever been isolated by purification is so much conspicuously stupid junk, and a
frank embarrassment to the entire AIDS dissident activist community that isn’t
scientifically illiterate.

It is not known whether David Crowe also appreciates that indeed the whole of
‘retrovirology’ is also junk. It is not known whether he believes in
‘retroviruses’ as fervently as his organization’s most important scientists
Peter and Etienne de Harven also do, even though no ‘retrovirus’ has ever been
shown to exist. What makes it uncertain whether David Crowe also fervently
believes in retroviruses is that he stood by and then presumably clapped his
hands enthusiastically afterwards when Etienne de Harven told the conference all
about the ‘Friend Leukaemia Virus’ he reckons he isolated back in the sixties,
which the Perth Group have shown to be complete rubbish. And also the Human
Endogenous Retrovirus he reckons Montagnier found and mistook for ‘HIV’.

The thing is that David Crowe well knew that Etienne was talking a complete heap
of rubbish at the conference, which is to say misleading those attending,
because when thanks to him the Perth Group dissociated from RA in September, he
anxiously read the first annexure to their memorandum conveying this, in which
annexure they finely examined Etienne’s claim to have isolated the ‘Friend
Leukaemia Virus’ and showed that he did no such thing, and that his ‘Friend Leukaemia
Virus’ is a complete heap of rubbish, as I said.

The question is, why was David Crowe so concerned to prevent not only a debate of
the crucial ‘HIV’ isolation issue but even an authorized presentation of the
Perth Group’s science on the point? (He jumped to support David Rasnick’s
decision to reject Eleni’s request that I present her science for her.)

Why was David Crowe perfectly happy to hear the conference told what he knows to
be scientific falsehoods, in other words lies?

And who gained from his obstruction of the ventilation and demonstration via
open discussion and debate with Peter of the true, fundamental problem with the
HIV theory of AIDS, the fact that the virus claimed to be at the heart of it all
has never been shown to exist?

Did the world, especially the Emerging World burdened and poisoned by the false
knowledge of HIV-AIDS, gain from the way David Crowe rigged the conference?

Or did David Crowe gain from the way David Crowe rigged the conference, David
Rasnick and Peter too?

Since Bob Leppo is a very kind person who generously sponsors RA financially,
and since he also sponsors Peter as a brilliant cutting-edge scientist with wow
a whole new theory of cancer and everything, is the problem not this: David
Crowe can’t afford to see Peter discredited at a public scientific conference as
a critic of the HIV theory of AIDS on the basis that his opposition to the
theory is fundamentally misconceived, and plainly so to everybody watching, and
it’s been fundamentally misconceived right from the start, in that without ever
having taken the trouble to appraise the integrity of their claims he just took
Montagnier and Gallo at their word when they said they’d isolated ‘HIV’; and
even though his embarrassing mistake was pointed out to him more than ten years
ago, he finds himself so far down the road with his embarrassing mistake that he
finds turning around impossible, and he can’t bear the thought of having to eat
crow and say, ‘My God, Eleni, you were right after all, from the beginning!
What a fool I’ve been! What a fool I am!’?

Since Bob might not think Peter was such a brilliant cutting-edge scientist
after all, realize he’s been misled by him concerning ‘HIV’, and might even cut
off the cash.

Cut off the cash to RA too.

And where would that leave David Crowe?

With his RA organization completely discredited and reduced to a fall down
laughing joke, defunded also, he’d be back to being President of his ridiculous
one-man Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society, of which he’s the only member in the
whole of Canada.

But at least then, with these fools and unprincipled opportunists and
megalomaniacs cleared out of our way, we would be able to prosecute the correct
line on AIDS, without hindrance from them, which is, as you know, that the
alleged virus claimed to cause it has never been proved to exist.

And no more namby-pamby Canadian faffing about how it’s all too much to tell it
like it is.

No more engaging with the orthodoxy by stating half-truths, which is to say
lies.